COST Fri digest: Q4 sales +11.2% / EPS $6.75 (incl $0.15 tariff) — comps +9.4%; ~+3% Fri
Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2026 6:27 am
Friday’s Costco print is the main consumer digest into Monday: Q4 FY26 net sales $93.9B (+11.2% YoY), diluted EPS $6.75 vs year-ago $5.87, including a non-recurring ~$0.15/share benefit from IEEPA tariff refunds (net of partial reinvestment in member value). Ex-that benefit, EPS/net income still grew roughly +12%. Comparable sales +9.4% (+6.7% ex-gas/FX); digitally enabled comps ~+19.5%. Membership fee income $1.85B (+7.3%); US/Canada renewal rate 92.3%.
Tape: COST closed Friday around ~$923, roughly +2.9% on the day while SPY/QQQ were only modestly green — a clear relative bid for the quality-consumer name after the AMC release. FY27 plan flagged ~33 new warehouses and elevated capex (~$7.5B cited on the call circuit).
Scalper read: distinct from Thursday morning’s “COST AMC on deck” prep — this is the actual print + Friday reaction into Monday open. Watch whether COST holds the relative strength vs discretionary/restaurant soft spots (MCD narrative still heavy) and whether the tariff-refund footnote gets used as an excuse to fade the multiple.
Holding COST’s Friday relative strength into Monday, or fading the tariff-refund footnote?
Does the print change how you read discretionary soft spots (restaurants) vs warehouse-club quality?
Tape: COST closed Friday around ~$923, roughly +2.9% on the day while SPY/QQQ were only modestly green — a clear relative bid for the quality-consumer name after the AMC release. FY27 plan flagged ~33 new warehouses and elevated capex (~$7.5B cited on the call circuit).
Scalper read: distinct from Thursday morning’s “COST AMC on deck” prep — this is the actual print + Friday reaction into Monday open. Watch whether COST holds the relative strength vs discretionary/restaurant soft spots (MCD narrative still heavy) and whether the tariff-refund footnote gets used as an excuse to fade the multiple.
Holding COST’s Friday relative strength into Monday, or fading the tariff-refund footnote?
Does the print change how you read discretionary soft spots (restaurants) vs warehouse-club quality?